- City of Davis revisits Measure J with four possible exemption paths.
- Developers could qualify for exemption through affordable housing or climate mitigation.
- The state’s enforcement of housing policies is tightening, with potential penalties.
The City of Davis is again revisiting how Measure J/R/D might be modified — this time with four possible exemption paths. On the surface, the proposal appears to create flexibility. But the subtext is clear: state pressure on Davis’s housing policies is intensifying, and the city’s voter-controlled growth system is once again under scrutiny.
One of the most striking aspects of the current proposal is that developers could qualify for a Measure J exemption through several routes: affordable housing, climate or environmental mitigation, community benefits, or the establishment of an Urban Limit Line.
Each category is meant to open a narrow path for projects to proceed without voter approval.
The idea of a 50 percent affordable housing exemption stands out. The city’s existing 100 percent affordable exemption has produced no new projects, highlighting its practical limits. Lowering that threshold could, in theory, make some projects viable. A breakdown like 20 percent moderate, 10 percent low, 10 percent very low, and 10 percent extremely low-income units could demonstrate the city’s commitment to affordability while giving developers a chance to make projects pencil out.
Still, it’s uncertain how effective such a model would be. Even with subsidies, building a 50 percent affordable project in Davis’s market would be financially difficult.
The more realistic scenario could be a hybrid — a bifurcated development with a large land dedication for affordable housing alongside a market-rate component. That would maintain a strong affordability commitment while allowing some economic balance.
The climate and environmental pathway also appears in the proposal, suggesting exemptions for projects achieving “complete carbon neutrality,” microgrid connections, or greater-than-100-percent mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. These are admirable goals, but they don’t directly resolve the housing supply issue that has drawn state scrutiny to Measure J.
The community benefits option would allow exemptions for projects offering substantial public facilities or contributions beyond standard requirements — like shelters for extreme weather, major infrastructure, or renewable energy projects.
While potentially valuable, this could become subjective without a clear formula or valuation standard, leaving it vulnerable to negotiation rather than consistent policy.
That leaves the Urban Limit Line (ULL) — arguably the most conceptually promising but least understood element of the proposal. A genuine Urban Limit Line would create a fixed boundary for development that’s revisited every eight years to coincide with the state’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycle.
Rather than debating each project individually, the city could define in advance where growth is permissible.
Done right, that would bring predictability to both residents and developers. Done poorly, it could amount to a symbolic gesture. The staff report, as written, doesn’t fully explain how the concept would function.
A meaningful Urban Limit Line would need to be integrated into the General Plan update and grounded in a commitment to align city boundaries with state housing targets.
The conversation about exemptions can’t be separated from what’s happening at the state level.
Recent correspondence between the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) makes clear that enforcement is tightening.
In an Aug. 29, 2025, letter, SACOG’s Chelsea Lee warned local jurisdictions that HCD will begin outreach to evaluate progress on Cycle 6 Housing Element implementation.
“HCD will begin its review of each jurisdiction by assessing progress on key programs and deadlines that were indicated in your Cycle 6 HEs,” the letter explained.
It described a three-tier review process, with potential escalation to “high” enforcement that could include a Notice of Violation revoking Housing Element compliance.
A follow-up message from HCD’s Fidel Herrera on Sept. 4 reiterated that the department will proactively monitor and review jurisdictions’ housing programs under the Housing Element Implementation Program.
“HCD welcomes the opportunity to answer any questions and looks forward to working with you all,” Herrera wrote — a diplomatic but unmistakable reminder that state authority now extends beyond paper compliance.
The state’s position is not new. In 2021, HCD explicitly stated that Measure J “poses a constraint to the development of housing by requiring voter approval of any land use designation change.”
The city countered that it had sufficient infill sites to meet its housing obligations through 2029.
But even city officials have acknowledged that this strategy won’t hold.
In December 2023, then-Mayor Will Arnold cautioned that meeting the next RHNA cycle through infill alone would be nearly impossible, noting the “difficulty we’re having in doing so” even for the current allocation.
Legal Services of Northern California went further, calling the city’s earlier conclusion “false.” In a letter to the city, the organization argued that Measure J delays and added costs inherently limit housing supply — even when sufficient infill sites exist on paper.
“The City Council’s recent decision to not put any of the five peripheral development proposals on the ballot for November 2024 proves that Measure J/R/D does limit housing supply,” the letter stated.
While that’s a more aggressive reading of the law than the city has adopted, it reflects the broader reality that Davis cannot rely indefinitely on infill alone. Under Government Code section 65583(a)(5), cities are required to identify and remove governmental constraints — including land use controls — that hinder the ability to meet regional housing needs. Measure J, by requiring a public vote on nearly all peripheral growth, fits squarely within that definition.
The city’s decision to reopen the Measure J discussion so soon after its last review is a clear acknowledgment that it sees the writing on the wall. The “constraint” argument may have been deferred in the last Housing Element cycle, but it won’t be ignored in the next one.
In the short term, Davis could still meet its 6th Cycle RHNA numbers through rezonings and infill adjustments. But the long-term question is whether the city can continue to defend a policy framework that the state now views as exclusionary and obstructive to housing production.
The proposed exemptions — from 50 percent affordability to Urban Limit Lines — represent an effort to balance local control with state compliance. Whether they succeed will determine more than just the next development proposal. They will determine whether Measure J itself survives in any meaningful form.
At this point, Davis has a choice. It can proactively modernize Measure J, aligning it with state law and regional housing goals, or it can dig in and risk losing control altogether.
The city can either evolve Measure J to reflect twenty-first century realities — or wait for the state to do it for them.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
“A genuine Urban Limit Line would create a fixed boundary for development that’s revisited every eight years to coincide with the state’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycle.”
So a “genuine Urban Limit Line” that’s not so genuine in 8 years. Who thinks the voters will actually fall for this stuff?
Let’s face it, they’re looking for ways to do an end around Measure J which was overwhelmingly passed by 83% of the voters.
You’re ignoring half of the story here which is the pressure from the state.
So because of pressure from the state there can never really be an Urban Limit Line if it can be changed every 8 years. What genuine or authentic about that?
You don’t think the voters will see through that?
I don’t know what seeing through that means. Right now there is a de facto urban limit line at the ag-urban boundary that can only be extended through a vote of the people. From the standpoint of the state and some leaders in Davis, that arrangement has become untenable. There will be some sort of interaction between the city, voters and the state to figure out what new arrangement is viable.
We’ve been through this many, many times.
The state (HCD) is not targeting Measure J. The reason they’re not targeting it is because it has to do with land outside of Davis’ city limits.
HCD does correctly note that Davis cannot “count” proposals (in regard to RHNA targets) prior to voter approval. That’s what your quoted section states.
If some city officials (or others) lie about this, it’s likely going to further erode trust – and will likely further endanger the current round of Measure J proposals (which is fine by me, at least).
If anyone (either within the state or some separate organization) attempts to overturn Measure J, they are going to have an extended legal fight – which they will lose (since the law doesn’t support their position).
“ We’ve been through this many, many times.”
You’re in denial at this point as to what is about to unfold.
I notice that you didn’t address the point. The state is not stating what you claim it is. It’s right in your quoted section.
The state is stating that the city cannot count proposals in regard to RHNA targets prior to approval by voters. It’s that simple, and they are correct regarding that.
For that matter, cities also likely cannot count proposals that their councils haven’t approved.
Nor can San Francisco approve a development in the middle of the bay, nor can it approve one in Brisbane.
These are all “constraints” on land outside of city limits. Even an urban limit line that is 5 miles out from the city is a constraint. Agricultural easements and agricultural zoning are constraints. The state’s own Williamson Act is a constraint.
There are VAST areas of Marin that are off limits to development, as a result of such constraints.
The city is moving forward with a process comprised of citizens of this community who are serving on commissions and doing so in order to address the state’s communications. Your interpreting the communication and the law far too narrowly.
The city is partly governed by those who don’t tell the truth to its own citizens, and had previously decimated the commissions to reflect their views in a rather Trumpian manner.
And I notice that you still haven’t addressed the fact that the state is not targeting Measure J – per your own citation.
There is no law supporting the state forcing cities to expand outside of their boundaries.
None of this is going to end well for the two current Measure J proposals. (And if I was a developer of one of these proposals, I’d be pissed-off at the city in regard to all of this when my own proposal is pending potential approval by voters, money spent for an EIR, etc.) In fact, I’d probably look for a way to try to sue the city – especially if my proposal failed as a result of this last-minute city-created chaos.
Ron O
You and other NIMBYs (although you’re actually not a true NIMBY because you live in Woodland with no legitimate voice in this debate) are missing an important point because David jumps to the bottom line, skipping over the steps that gets him to there. I admit I haven’t been so clear on how we get to this conclusion either. Here’s how the state gets to overriding Measure J/R/D:
– The RHNA now compels Davis to grow in population by at least an allocated amount during every cycle. The state is now enforcing this mandate through lawsuits and court judgements and application of the builder’s remedy. Cities that have constrained boundaries are being required to meet their targets regardless of professed infeasibility. Despite your claims that the state won’t enforce these targets, the evidence strongly refutes your unsubstantiated assertion.
– Davis was able to meet its last Housing Element allocation by exhausting all of the available infill options, even with some property owners withdrawing their parcels. Davis no longer has any clear near term infill options. (We laid out a longer term option in our last article: https://davisvanguard.org/2025/09/op-ed-long-term-planning-corridor-development-beats-sprawl/)
– HCD and SACOG will allocate another large chunk of affordable housing units to Davis in the next RHNA cycle. Davis will not be able to meet this allocation solely with infill. The state will not accept a response that claims that meeting this is infeasible due to Measure J/R/D. Voters rejecting a development that might meet that goal will only trigger an enforcement response from the state. Several successful suits by the AG have shown that such excuses carry no weight against compliance.
– The state will then order Davis to come in compliance by either allowing infill through solutions such as the builder’s remedy or by voiding Measure J/R/D. If Davis hasn’t prepared for this event, this will come as a sudden change that opens the door to the sprawling developments that you rail against. Building in greenfields is less costly and easier than infill with higher density in brownfields.
So the bottom line is that David is correct–the state will invalidate Measure J/R/D and hand control of Davis development back to developers with little community input unless we modify the measure. We can continue to pretend there’s no threat, sticking our heads in the sand, or we can enhance the measure so that we give more clear direction at the same time as providing developers a less risky path that reduces their costs.
You can try to assert without any evidence other than your usual bluster that what I’ve laid out is not true. You’ll try to claim that the state doesn’t have the political will to follow through despite the clear and irrefutable evidence that the AG is doing exactly that. You’ll try to claim that the prospect of future population declines decades from now will somehow solve today’s housing crisis. You’ll try to claim that there is no housing crisis despite the economic evidence of the supply/demand imbalance in Davis’ house price premium, the general affordability problem across the state and the inaccessibility to the housing market for younger households. And as many of us have told you over and over, you’ll be wrong again.
Richard: San Francisco (and every other city along the coast) is not expanding outward, and still has to address the same targets. No one from those cities is using the “excuse” that something is preventing them from expanding outward.
There is never a shortage of infill sites – ever. They can always knock down buildings are rebuild them higher (at least on paper).
As far as Davis issues are concerned, did you tell the developers of the current proposal that you live in Davis? How about the council, in regard to their decision to not require a “microgrid” in regard to those proposals (despite your wishes)? (Perhaps they didn’t realize that you live in Davis when they summarily ignored you and the four other people in your self-professed “representative” group?)
There is not a single instance (not one) of the state forcing cities to expand their boundaries. And the reason there isn’t is because the state’s laws DON’T REQUIRE cities to expand their boundaries.
Nor is there any evidence that the state is looking to require any city to expand its boundaries.
David and others are purposefully misrepresenting what the state said.
“because David jumps to the bottom line, skipping over the steps that gets him to there”
Also, the reason he (and you) keep “skipping over the steps” is because they don’t exist. You can’t purposefully misstate what HCD said, make up your own laws, and then base an entire argument on that.
Again, most of the cities throughout the state cannot expand outward. And yet, they still have to address RHNA targets (at least on paper). They are fake targets, and are already failing on a truly massive scale. There is ALWAYS more room for infill, by tearing down existing structures (at least on paper).
What we have here are a small group of people who don’t like Measure J, and are attempting to get the voters to shoot themselves in the head, so to speak.
You will lose, and you’ll take down the two current proposals in the process (which is fine by me). And frankly, it sounds like it’s also fine with you if the two current proposals are taken down, as well.
Chris Elmendorf makes an interesting point with respect to Newsom.
“He’s transformed @California_HCD from a minor department that just oversaw the cumbersome “housing element” law, to a powerful agency that enforces a broad suite of state laws through its Housing Accountability Unit,” Elmendorf said.
He cites a 2021 CalMatter article (https://calmatters.org/housing/2021/10/california-housing-podcast-enforcement/) – “The 25-person team with a budget of more than $4 million is expected to help cities meet their housing goals — and crack down on those who fail to do so. They will also be enforcing a slew of other California housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act, Surplus Lands Act and Density Bonus Law.”
Elmendorf’s post captures a major structural shift that’s central to understanding my article today.
Under Governor Gavin Newsom, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has evolved from a relatively passive, administrative agency — one that primarily reviewed housing elements (city housing plans) — into a robust enforcement arm with statewide authority.
Before Newsom, HCD’s oversight was procedural and limited to approving plans.
Under Newsom, it now operates like a regulatory agency — interpreting, enforcing, and policing state housing law through the HAU and related initiatives like the Prohousing Designation Program and coordination with the Attorney General’s Housing Strike Force.
This shift has political and legal consequences. Cities once treated housing-element deadlines as paperwork; now, non-compliance risks lawsuits, state intervention, and loss of funding eligibility. In effect, Newsom turned HCD from a “paper tiger” into an enforcement agency with teeth.
The fact that the city is responding to communications from both SACOG and HCD and launching this effort shows they are taking this threat very seriously.
If the city council puts a Measure J project on the ballot and the voters approve it, much of this discussion seems moot.
We don’t just want housing willy-nilly. Our community has to live with what is built for decades, even longer than a century. While an Urban Limit Line looks attractive, it will require some constraints to be acceptable. As we showed in recent article, just having an urban limit line will not get us enough housing to meet our needs over the next 40 years. https://davisvanguard.org/2025/09/op-ed-long-term-planning-corridor-development-beats-sprawl/ We got Measure J because the development in the 1990s occurred without local constraints and Davis citizens rebelled. We must not ignore those lessons and blithely assume that those concerns have disappeared.
To start, we absolutely need the climate and environmental pathway to meet our CAAP goals. The DiSC developers accepted that what the NRC put forward in 2020 and 2022 was feasible but were not willing to accept them as baseline features that could not be altered. After the experience with The Cannery, we can’t trust the City Staff to follow through on development guidelines, so these must be immutable legal mandates. These policies will not slow down housing because they are minor development costs and often even reduce the cost of construction. They also reduce the cost of ownership for buyers which is the real financial bottom line. Installing a municipal microgrid is one example.
For affordability, we need to focus more on the missing middle market who are not eligible for the standard Affordable housing. The problem is that mandating too much Affordable housing actually cuts out this market segment because it takes more McMansions in a development to pay for that subsidized housing. Instead we can meet this market by mandating density levels that produce more affordable smaller housing. A 50% exemption will only exacerbate this problem. Maybe a menu of options such a sliding density scale relative to the Affordable housing requirement could work. Davis has shown there is a market for this housing with the many duplexes in central Davis.
For community benefits, it is possible to identify a menu of options with quantities and defining tradeoffs for a developer. The LEED Neighborhood standards, while fatally flawed, show that this is possible.
Richard, neither the developer nor the city is listening to you (or the four other people in your group) regarding the proposals. The developer isn’t changing his proposal, and the city isn’t requiring microgrids (despite your wishes in regard to both of those issues).
Didn’t you explain to them that you live in Davis, and that you and the 4 other people in your group represent the entire city? Maybe you’d better remind them of that – perhaps they *misunderstood* where you live and will reconsider when you explain it again.
“There is not a single instance (not one) of the state forcing cities to expand their boundaries. And the reason there isn’t is because the state’s laws DON’T REQUIRE cities to expand their boundaries.”
This is true, but I think it’s moot, Cities expand their boundaries when LAFCO approves annexation. If an annexation proposal brought by a peripheral landowner meets the LAFCO guidelines for orderly development, LAFCO will approve it and the city has no power to stop the annexation (with one exception that doesn’t pertain to the situation in Davis). Once the land is annexed, if the city denies development approval and is unable to meet RHNA requirements, the state can either sue the city to compel RHNA compliance, or development can proceed under the builder’s remedy.
Either way, if the city is unable to meet RHNA requirements through infill, peripheral development is likely to happen whether the city wants it to or not. So in a sense, cities *can* be forced to expand through the action of state laws and policies.
One thing that’s not clear to me is whether or not the state can or will consider the potential of annexation, rather than de facto annexation, in bringing suit against a city for failing to meet RHNA targets. If a recalcitrant city throws enough uncertainty into peripheral development proposals, the peripheral landowners might be reluctant to proceed with annexation, fearing the prospect of paying city taxes — and possibly litigation costs — for years without certainty of profitable development.
“Once the land is annexed, if the city denies development approval and is unable to meet RHNA requirements . . .”
No city in the entire state will be able to meet RHNA requirements. They’re not doing so now, and won’t be able to do so in the future. They do, however, address them on paper.
The demand ultimately isn’t there, in regard to the costs (and lack of natural population growth).
Nor are the subsidies there, in regard to “Affordable” housing.
The state and the YIMBYs have a lot of “suing” to do. As I said, I’m actually hoping that these clowns sue every city in the state.
But what you’re referring to sounds like the same situation in regard to having three people “like me” on a council – even with no Measure J. Sounds like they’d also have to deal with the county and the “pass through” agreement in that scenario. (And perhaps the county would want to claim that housing in regard to its own RHNA “targets”, rather than letting Davis claim them.)
WT-Actual-F ????!!!!!
An urban limit line that is revisited every EIGHT YEARS ???!!!
How is that a limit? That’s like saying, it’s OK, your cancer is stable, it will only grow every eight years.
And yes, I’m equating sprawl with cancer. Deal with it.
Maybe they can frame it as the Maginot Urban Limit Line?
You know, easily bypassed.
What is frustrating to me is there are these “options” and none of them are really “good”
I did the math a couple of years ago that showed that an urban limit line COULD be permenant, if we also focus on densification and transit, and if we use the peripheral properties wisely and at sufficient density.
All of these options are just going to get us more unconnected low-density development, but with the advantage of one of a few perks we might want… none of them actually adress the real concern which is a lack of PLANNING.
We need capital A affordable, but we need missing middle housing even more. How does any of this get us that? And denser housing really needs to be transit served. How do we get THAT?
This is why every single tiem we have discussed modification of measure J, we have tried to replace it with a MASTER PLAN. Something that actually provides all of the things we need together….. the right housing types, in the right places all connected by transit.
I dont see how any of these options get us that. Its really frustrating to see the city think that these are our choices, when clearly a better much more developed concept for what a measure J amendment should look like has been in circulation and discussion in the community for literally years now.